Standards Committee finds Milford Haven councillor breached code despite claims he only helped another councillor complete paperwork

A PEMBROKESHIRE councillor has been found to have breached the Members’ Code of Conduct in a case which raises serious questions about proportionality, common sense, and the way standards complaints are pursued at County Hall.

Cllr Alan Dennison was found in breach by Pembrokeshire County Council’s Standards Committee on Tuesday (May 26) following a hearing into his involvement in a planning referral linked to Milford Haven businessman Lee Bridges.

The committee found that Cllr Dennison had no dispensation from the Standards Committee and had made a written representation in relation to the matter.

But the evidence heard during the hearing painted a far more nuanced picture than a simple case of a councillor using his position to influence a planning decision.

The central issue was a planning referral form relating to Mr Bridges’ business at the former Masonic Hall, also known commercially as the Imperial Hall, in Milford Haven.

Cllr Dennison’s case was that he did not act for Mr Bridges at all. He said he signed the document “pp” on behalf of Cllr Terry Davies, the elected local member, who was entitled to request that the matter be referred to committee.

“If Terry Davies had signed it himself, we would not be here today,” Cllr Dennison told the hearing.

He said the document belonged to Cllr Davies, not to him, and repeatedly argued that he should not have been before the committee.

“I rest that the document was signed for Terry Davies, and that I should not be sat here,” he said.

Mr Bridges supported that account. In a statement, he said the matter stemmed entirely from his request for Cllr Terry Davies to submit an appeal in his capacity as the elected member for the ward where the business is located.

He said Cllr Davies had been unable to complete the required paperwork within the allotted timeframe due to family circumstances and had sought assistance from Cllr Dennison, a fellow member of the same democratic group.

Mr Bridges said: “Councillor Dennison simply assisted in completing the paperwork and signed it on behalf of Councillor Davis with his authority.

“At no stage did Councillor Dennison have any involvement whatsoever in the decision-making process relating to the outcome of the matter in question. Consequently, there was no declarable interest requiring disclosure.”

That point goes to the heart of the controversy.

Cllr Dennison did not vote on the planning application. He did not sit on the committee deciding the outcome. He did not, on the evidence heard, have power to determine the application. His role, according to his case and Mr Bridges’ evidence, was limited to helping another councillor complete paperwork.

The Ombudsman’s case focused on Cllr Dennison’s links to Mr Bridges. The committee heard that he had previously provided a private loan to Mr Bridges’ business during Covid, which was later repaid; had briefly been recorded as a non-executive director; had gone on holiday to Mexico with Mr Bridges and their wives; and that Mr Bridges’ wife is godmother to Cllr Dennison’s grandson.

Mr Bridges accepted he and Cllr Dennison remained friends, but said he had not known him before taking on the lease of the premises.

He also stressed that Cllr Dennison had never been a shareholder, employee, or paid officer of his business.

“For transparency, I want it to be crystal clear,” Mr Bridges said. “I can confirm I am the sole and only shareholder of the business, and always have been.

“Councillor Dennison has never been a shareholder or an employee. He has never received any salary payments, dividends, or any other financial remuneration from the business at any time whatsoever.”

He said Cllr Dennison’s non-executive directorship had been temporary and linked to the Covid-era loan, which was repaid.

Mr Bridges said he felt “very aggrieved” for Cllr Dennison and believed he had been placed in this position for helping a fellow councillor who was unable to complete his responsibilities at the time.

Cllr Hugh Murphy also gave evidence supporting Cllr Dennison’s position.

He said: “I hold the belief that Mr Dennison is correct. If you sign a document pp, the owner of that document is in the name of the person, it is not Councillor Dennison.”

Cllr Murphy said his understanding was that only the local member could submit the planning delegation application, and that the local member in this case was Cllr Terry Davies.

He also questioned the circumstances in which Cllr Dennison spoke at a planning meeting, saying it had been “the chair’s decision to ask him to speak” and adding that he believed “the chair acted in error.”

Cllr Murphy also raised concerns about the way the case had been framed, saying the Ombudsman’s report made “great play” of the close personal relationship between Cllr Dennison and Mr Bridges.

He suggested the wider background involved political objections raised by other councillors. Cllr Dennison himself referred during the hearing to objections raised by Cllr Jacob Williams and the late Cllr Mike Stoddart, saying: “This is why we are here.”

Mr Stoddart was no political ally of Mr Bridges, who had stood against him in a recent council election.

Under questioning from David Gardner, appearing for the Ombudsman, Cllr Murphy was referred to a section of council procedure which provides for a deputy local member to be designated where a councillor is prevented from seeking a referral because of a personal and prejudicial interest or prolonged absence.

Cllr Murphy said he had not been advised that such a procedure was available.

“If a legal expert who knows the constitution informed me, then yes, we might have adopted that procedure,” he said.

He added that no officer had made him aware of that aspect of the planning delegation policy, which he said “might be a matter of regret.”

That exchange may prove one of the most important of the hearing. If a formal route existed for another councillor to act, why was that route not clearly pointed out at the time? And if officers accepted the form as submitted, is it fair to later treat the method of submission as a standards breach?

Cllr Dennison repeatedly complained that his corrections to the factual account had not been properly taken into account.

“No one is listening to my corrections,” he told the hearing.

At one point, he challenged the way the Ombudsman’s report described the building, saying the historic building was the Masonic Hall and that Imperial Hall was Mr Bridges’ trading name. The chair suggested the distinction was “semantics”, while the barrister said the impact was minimal.

Cllr Dennison responded that not taking his views into account was “not minimal”.

The committee ultimately found a breach on the basis that he had no dispensation and had made a written representation.

That is the formal finding.

But the wider public interest question remains whether this was a proportionate use of the standards regime.

On the evidence heard, this was not a case of a councillor voting in secret, making a planning decision for a friend, or financially benefiting from an outcome. It was a case about a councillor helping another councillor complete a form — a form the council accepted — in circumstances where the final decision would still rest with the proper planning process.

Mr Bridges described the case as “deeply concerning” and said it appeared to be “being used as part of what can only be perceived as a personal campaign against Councillor Dennison, seemingly designed to damage his reputation rather than address any genuine procedural wrongdoing.”

He also criticised the wider handling of the planning issue, saying it had been characterised by “excessive bureaucracy, inconsistency” and concerns about “transparency and fairness within County Hall.”

The committee was continuing on Tuesday afternoon to consider what sanction, if any, should be imposed.